ArticleThe journal of prevention of Alzheimer's disease2025
Effectiveness of digital screening tools in detecting cognitive impairment among community-dwelling elderly in Northern China: A large cohort study.
Article in The journal of prevention of Alzheimer's disease, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluating digital cognitive tests for clinical use in Alzheimer's disease: A novel framework and scoping review.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2026Article
- Diagnostic accuracy of digital clock drawing test for Alzheimer disease and mild cognitive impairment.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- Application of Deep Multi-Scale Representation Learning Based on Eye-Tracking and Facial Expression Data in Cognitive Decline Assessment.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Norms of the geriatric complex figure test for adults aged 65 and older in Shanxi Province: analyses of reliability and validity.BMC geriatrics · 2026Article
- Predictive Value of Digital Neuropsychological and Gait Assessments on Shunt Outcome in Patients With Idiopathic Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus: Prospective Cohort Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThis study assessed the effectiveness of three digital screening tools in detecting cognitive impairment (CI) in a large cohort of community-dwelling elderly individuals and investigated the relationship between key digital features and plasma p-tau217 levels.
methodsThis community-based cohort study included 1,083 participants aged 65 years or older, with 337 diagnosed with CI and 746 classified as normal controls (NC). We utilized two screening approaches: traditional methods (AD8, MMSE scale, and APOE genotyping) and digital tools (drawing, gait, and eye tracking). LightGBM-based machine learning models were developed for each digital screening tool and their combination, and their performance was evaluated. The correlation between key digital features and plasma p-tau217 levels was analyzed as well.
resultsA total of 21 drawing, 71 gait, and 35 eye-tracking parameters showed significant differences between the two groups (all p < 0.05). The area under the curve (AUC) values for the drawing, gait, and eye-tracking models in distinguishing CI from NC were 0.860, 0.848, and 0.895, respectively. The combination of eye-tracking and drawing achieved the highest classification effectiveness, with an AUC of 0.958, and accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity all exceeded 85%. The fusion model achieved an AUC of 0.928 in distinguishing mild cognitive impairment (MCI) from NC. Additionally, several digital features (including two drawing, ten gait, and one eye-tracking parameters) were significantly correlated with plasma p-tau217 levels (all |r| > 0.3, p < 0.001). DISCUSSION: Digital screening tools offer objective, accurate, and efficient alternatives for detecting CI in community settings, with the fusion of drawing and eye-tracking providing the best performance (AUC = 0.958).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.